December 22, 2006
"Compassionate antigovernment conservatives"
There's an interesting piece in Newsweek by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson...
....As antigovernment conservatives seek to purify the Republican Party, it is reasonable to ask if the purest among them are conservatives at all. The combination of disdain for government, a reflexive preference for markets and an unbalanced emphasis on individual choice is usually called libertarianism. The old conservatives had some concerns about that creed, which Russell Kirk called "an ideology of universal selfishness." Conservatives have generally taught that the health of society is determined by the health of institutions: families, neighborhoods, schools, congregations. Unfettered individualism can loosen those bonds, while government can act to strengthen them. By this standard, good public policies—from incentives to charitable giving, to imposing minimal standards on inner-city schools—are not apostasy; they are a thoroughly orthodox, conservative commitment to the common good.
Campaigning on the size of government in 2008, while opponents talk about health care, education and poverty, will seem, and be, procedural, small-minded, cold and uninspired. The moral stakes are even higher. What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare? Nothing. What achievement would it contribute to racial healing and the unity of our country? No achievement at all. Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism—an idealism that strangles mercy.
But there is another Republican Party—what might be called the party of the governors. It is the party of Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, who has improved the educational performance of minority students and responded effectively to natural disasters. It is the party of Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who mandated basic health insurance while giving subsidies to low-income people. Neither of these men embrace big government; both show convincing outrage at wasteful spending. But they have also succeeded in making government work in essential government roles—not a small thing in a post-Katrina world....
I think Gerson is both right and wrong. (There are a number of wrong things I'm not getting into here, but do feel free to comment...) For instance, "What does antigovernment conservatism offer to inner-city neighborhoods where violence is common and families are rare?" I'd say, A LOT, since government itself causes many of the problems, and because economic growth is the first essential, if people are going to escape from the trap of the "underclass."
But there is also a lot that government needs to do, since these are people enmeshed in complex situations that government can't avoid. (Certain people I could think of ought to spend some time sitting among the hapless creatures in the waiting area of an inner-city hospital emergency room before they make pronouncements about "getting government off people's backs.") Only government can chose between competing groups and visions—that's never going to end. And government will always be responsible for law, for order, for safety, for education and health care... (Regular RJ readers are saying "wait a minute, we could offer some suggestions here." I'm getting to that.)
However, in every one of these government areas there are improvements or better methods that antigovernment conservatives could offer. But to offer them effectively they have to care. They have to get involved in the problems to have any impact. They need to be—dare I say it—compassionate. There, I said it. And if you are a conservative who cares, and you become say, a state governor, well you have all these tools—governmental tools— to hand, and there are these horrid problems....So you tend to morph into a "compassionate conservative."
But that's not exactly what's really needed. What we need I think are compassionate antigovernment conservatives.
But that's not exactly it either. I think the word antigovernment has a bad flavor. After all, government is us. This is a democracy. If I have a problem with government, I can e-mail my supervisor (San Francisco's aldermen are called supervisors, due to our odd situation of being both a county and a city) and get prompt results. He wants my vote. So government doesn't seem to be the alien monster that anti-government conservatives portray. And yet, the most common sort of situation that arises will pit me and our supervisor against something that feels rather like a strangling alien monster, the bureaucracy. In which fight it is quite possible that we will lose. I could tell you stories.
Perhaps what I'd like to see are compassionate anti-bureaucracy conservatives. And it often feels to me like many conservatives are groping in that direction. Yet we rarely seem to be able to make it explicit. I think that's what Bush's "Ownership Society" is about. For instance, privatizing Social Security is not "getting rid of government," it's getting rid of a bureaucracy. And getting rid of dependence on that bureaucracy. Same with school choice, or HSA's, or favoring 401-k's over traditional pension plans. These are the right ways to move, but I could just weep with frustration because this anti-bureaucracy idea is rarely made explicit—it should be a crusade! And the crusade should be about saving souls! Not in a religious sense, but about saving people's character and spirit from being destroyed by dependence and lack of responsibility. (It's also a religious issue, since the desire to be cocooned from life's dangers, and loss of faith seem to be intertwined.)
Maybe I'm just weird. This stuff seems so obvious to me, but it's not obvious to a smart guy like Gerson....
Posted by John Weidner at December 22, 2006 10:11 AMOK - nothing to add, yet (still thinking). But I thought this was timely. WSJ reviews this book today (couldn't find a link to WSJ review) http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008216/sr=1-1/qid=1166815367/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-4859762-0418837?ie=UTF8&s=books
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at December 22, 2006 11:32 AMHere's a link to the book: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism
The thesis here doesn't surprise me much. You won't have failed to observe that I'm a bit sceptical about how "caring" liberals really are.
Posted by: John Weidner at December 22, 2006 12:27 PMThe flaw in your argument is that bureaucracy is an inevitable result of government. It's like saying we should fight against roads, not cars. I agree that "anti-government" is a bad label.
Also, I don't understand why you think government has to chose between competing groups and visions. That's an endorsement of group rights, which I had thought you opposed. Why not let each group pursue its own happiness?
P.S. If you can e-mail a government official and get any non-boiler plate response, you're living in a different world than I do. Or heck, just read up on Mike Nifong and keep in mind that he's the elected official, not the bureaucracy.
I'm perfectly aware that there are many elected Nifongs, but Charlene and I have ourselves had the experience of having the Supe for our district responding quickly to an e-mail and spending long hours patiently listening to the folks on our block (in the evening when he surely would prefer to be home with his family) and then working, over a considerable span of time, to unsnarl a frustrating legal/bureaucratic mess.
That's electoral politics working as it is supposed to. Our votes count. (Actually, Nifong is also just responding to the wishes of his constituents, it's just that they want really horrid things. Like inflicting injustice on white guys in revenge for long-ago injustices on blacks. And feeding masochistic liberal white guilt.)
That's an endorsement of group rights... No, this does not need to refer to the "groups" that leftists obsess over. Every public action tends to create ad hoc groups which only exist only in reference to that action. For instance we have local "groups" which have formed over the issue of whether Home Depot shall sully our fair city with it's predatory ways. Leftists who hate big business are temporarily allied with hardware-store owners and preservationists and unions. On the other side there's Home Depot itself plus an inchoate mass of people who would like to just go shop. And only government can provide a way to chose between the two groups.
And no, bureaucracy is not an inevitable result of government. We tend to assume this because the Leftists who dominate pro-government thinking always want the bureaucratic solution, because they want to weaken individuals and keep power diffused into a preserve they almost always dominate.
But just consider an idea like school vouchers. If we had them government still would collect the taxes and still would force everyone to go to school somewhere. But no government bureaucracy would run the schools or chose the textbooks or hire the staff or mandate "diversity." (Except in the still existing government schools, if any.)
Posted by: John Weidner at December 23, 2006 11:54 AMJohn writes:
"For instance we have local "groups" which have formed over the issue of whether Home Depot shall sully our fair city with it's predatory ways. Leftists who hate big business are temporarily allied with hardware-store owners and preservationists and unions. On the other side there's Home Depot itself plus an inchoate mass of people who would like to just go shop. And only government can provide a way to chose between the two groups."
Huh? Why is it necessary for the government to choose? All Home Depot needs to do is buy the appropriate amount of land at the appropriate spot, build their store, open it, and let the people choose who gets their custom, not some bureaucrats and their leftist enablers.
Oh, wait a minute. I forgot about the zoning Nazis.....
Posted by: Hale Adams at December 23, 2006 08:03 PM"government to choose? " I was writing a bit hastily, what I meant is that this is a political problem, and we citizens will have to solve it through government. Which may mean bureaucracy (Planning Dept.) or legislation, or lawsuits, or ballot measures. Them's our choices.
The objections seem wrong to me, and to you, but they are valid, in that reasonable people can hold them for rational reasons. In a perfect society everyone would just ask me or you what to do, and we would tell them, and everybody would be happy. 'till then, or 'till The Revolution, government will be the arena where these problems will be fought over and decided.
Your libertarianish suggestion doesn't apply, since there is no agreement on what's an "appropriate spot." Not my block, that's for sure...
Posted by: John Weidner at December 23, 2006 10:43 PMJohn,
You write, "Not my block, that's for sure...", which is precisely my point, and why my libertarianish suggestion does apply.
Yes, I know, there are infrastructure issues to be addressed (roads, traffic, etc.) in accomodating a big-box store like Home Depot, Best Buy, etc. That's one of the reasons why there will never be a Home Depot on your block, John. :)
That said, too many people have the NIMBY or BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) attitude, and I have to wonder where it is carved in stone that they have veto power over the erection of a big-box store on a suitable plot of ground that has the appropriate infrastructure in place (or can be readily put in place by the outfit owning the land). Who died and made those objectors God?
If those NIMBYs and BANANAs don't want to shop at Home Depot, that's fine. I'm certainly not going to force them to shop there. But in giving them veto power over land-use decisions by land-owners, we let them force us to shop in places we don't want to shop in. Why is such force "OK" for them to use on us, but not for us to use on them?
By the way, Merry Christmas!
They don't have a veto power, but they do have the right to oppose. And almost anywhere else they would have lost years ago, and grumbled about our veto power. (It's more bizarro than you think, the situation has lasted at least 15 years, and the proposed site is in an industrial area, at what was previously the location of another large hardware/lumber store.)
This is actually interesting to me as an example of how there is no situation of which you can say, "all reasonable people will agree." I look at it and think, "No 'utopia' will ever work."
And Merry Christmas to you, and anyone who reads! I get a lot of pleasure from my far-flung circle of friends.
Posted by: John Weidner at December 24, 2006 07:53 AMBut this is precisely why libertarians are so enamored of property rights. The point is that the government should decide at a higher level, rather than a case by case basis of arbitrating among groups. The latter is effectively group rights, denoted by the lack of the rule of law (i.e., if the government has to chose between groups rather than laws, you've endorsed rule by the former rather than the latter).
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 24, 2006 04:42 PMThat's all perfectly true, but only part of the truth, and it's a mistake to take a part and try to make it the whole. Property rights can palliate certain problems, but they have no remedy for the problems that arise from the deep strangeness and bent-ness of the human soul.
That's why I find this Home Depot issue intellectually charming. The result of historically unequalled levels of prosperity, education, freedom and communication is sheer perversity and insanity, and people utterly at loggerheads. And unable to even find common ground to discuss things. It makes a delightful mockery of a certain sort of SF story I used to read in my youth, where future man was rational and had left behind all passion and illogic.
Posted by: John Weidner at December 24, 2006 06:51 PM
